Southern resident orcas are in so much trouble that NOAA Fisheries, the federal agency that is in charge of keeping tabs on marine mammals, announced in May that the southern resident orca is one of eight focal species for the agency, selected because they have enough information to conclude that without concerted conservation attention, it will go extinct.

]]>I dare you- no, I triple dog dare you- to find someone that doesn’t find themselves riveted while watching these amazing creatures on TV, or if they are lucky enough, to gaze upon them in their wild habitat. Whenever I mention to anyone that Defenders is working to save southern resident orcas from extinction, people get a light in their eye and sit up a little straighter. Many come with personal orca stories, some declare the orca as their totem or spirit animal, others just breathe a sigh of relief and say, ‘I’m so glad, they need it.’ These interactions stoke the fire in my belly and keep my mind churning, dreaming up ways to harness all the love for orcas that is out there and channeling it into the help and action orcas desperately need.

Orcas live in oceans around the globe. However, in the northeastern Pacific Ocean, orcas are grouped into three categories based on where they spend their time and what they eat: the off-shores, the transients, and the residents. Orca researchers break the resident category further into groups called communities, based on their placement along the Pacific coast of North America. Resident orcas live very close to shore, travel less than the other types of orca, and eat fish exclusively. The most endangered community of resident orca, called the southern resident orca, consists of only three pods, and mostly lives along the coastlines of Washington, Oregon and northern California. There are fewer than 80 individuals in this rare population, and their future is as uncertain as cursive writing, compact discs, or land-based phone lines.

Sometimes called killer whales, orcas are actually the world’s largest dolphin. They are incredibly intelligent and live in pods led by a matriarch, or older female orca. They live well beyond their reproductive age, and recent research suggests that the female orca has the wisdom and experience to guide the younger members of the pod through lean and tough times, thus increasing the survival of her species well beyond the years when she is actively giving birth to calves. One of the only other species known to do this is Homo sapiens. Yep. You and me….and orcas. Think about that one for a minute. The oldest southern resident orca is a female matriarch officially named J-2 and lovingly called Granny. She is a remarkable 104 years old and has led her pod through many a hard time. Granny’s got street cred.

(story continues below)

Washingtonians are the most fortunate when it comes to viewing this group of orcas. The southern resident orcas use the Puget Sound as their summer home. Whale watching opportunities from the shore and on water are a large part of the tourism economy. Orcas are also sacred to many Native American tribes that live along the coast, and are sometimes called wolves of the sea because they travel, hunt, and live in complex social groups. The southern residents also spend a hefty amount of time along the stunningly beautiful Oregon coast. Depending on the year and where the salmon are, they travel even further south and spend time foraging along the coast of San Francisco.

Two issues impact the southern resident’s survival most: pollution and prey abundance (the number of salmon available to eat). Both issues are tricky to tackle.

Just like humans, without food to eat, southern residents won’t last long. Scientists have already recorded indicators of nutritional stress, or starvation, in dead orcas that have washed ashore.

These orcas feed specifically on Chinook salmon – and the fish’s numbers have been dwindling steadily for many years all over the Pacific Northwest. The decline is linked to habitat alteration and destruction from human development; hydro-electric dams, barriers like railroad tracks and roads, pollution, and dredged rivers disconnected from their floodplains. How can we increase Chinook salmon numbers in the wild? Research suggests the answer is providing more pollutant-free habitat to let them spawn and rear safely and successfully.

Pollution in the orca’s marine home and in the food they eat also add to their troubles. Toxins affect their nervous and reproductive systems and just make them feel less up to the task of going about their daily business. Scientists call it reduced fitness. Animals that rely on a thick coat of blubber to stay warm in the cold ocean water are particularly vulnerable to build-up of toxins in their bodies because the toxins love to stick to fat cells. When food is low and they use their blubber reserves for energy, the toxins are mobilized and wreak havoc in their bodies. The toxins are also passed through the milk that females provide their young. Like human children, orca babies are more vulnerable to toxic chemical exposure because their bodies and brains are still developing.

(story continues below)

Southern resident orcas are in so much trouble that NOAA Fisheries, the federal agency that is in charge of keeping tabs on marine mammals, announced in May that the southern resident orca is one of eight focal species for the agency, selected because they have enough information to conclude that without concerted conservation attention, it will go extinct. Enter Defenders of Wildlife. Now, where did I put my orca superhero cape?

Since Defenders’ Northwest Program opened in Seattle last fall, our staff has been hard at work identifying ways we can start helping southern resident orcas.

Defenders is committed to working on increasing Chinook salmon abundance and reducing toxins in the marine and riverine environment. Our first focus is going to be on addressing the hundreds of derelict and abandoned vessels that litter Oregon and Washington shorelines, each potentially leaking fuel, metals, and other chemicals into the water.

Defenders also applauds the delegation of Oregon Representatives and Senators that introduced the Columbia River Basin Restoration Act to be considered by Congress. The Act would create a Columbia River Basin Restoration Program within the EPA and designate critical funds for removing toxins from the river that wouldotherwise concentrate in many organisms all the way to up to orca blubber. The Act has been assigned to a committee in the US House of Representatives and is still waiting to be heard – we’ll keep you posted.

There’s no one easy fix, but these actions are all part of the solution that will put the southern resident orca on the road to recovery. And it’s just in the nick of time.

This past winter and spring, five calves were born to the southern resident orcas, four of which still survive. Since 2012, no southern resident orca calves have survived, and a half-dozen adults have died, so the veritable orca nursery is good news. It is not surprising that the births followed an outstanding run of Chinook salmon in the Columbia River Basin last fall. Food was so good last winter that the southern resident orcas stayed off the Oregon Coast for the entire winter and never needed to travel down to Northern California. The relationship seems pretty clear: Where there are Chinook salmon, there are southern resident orcas. Now that the four calves have survived to the July population census, we have 81 southern resident orcas to fight for in the Pacific Northwest!

In April, the National Marine Fisheries Service began the process to determine whether the Gulf of Mexico population of Bryde’s should be protected under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Defenders recently provided information on the many threats the Bryde’s whale faces to reinforce the case for listing.

]]>The Gulf of Mexico’s only Baleen Whale Faces a Multitude of Threats as Drilling Continues

When the Deepwater Horizon drilling platform exploded and sank in April 2010, hemorrhaging 200 million gallons of oil into the Gulf of Mexico, I was finishing up my first year of environmental policy and science courses. There could not have been a more depressing send-off to final exams for an ardent environmentalist than witnessing the largest oil spill in U.S. history. Five years later, more than emotional scars remain as oil exposure continues to affect marine mammals in the Gulf of Mexico.

The Gulf of Mexico is home to just one species of baleen whale: the Bryde’s whale (pronounced BREW-duhs). It lives in tropical waters in the Atlantic, Pacific, and Indian Oceans, but one unique and isolated population makes its home in a small area of the Gulf of Mexico, just off the Florida Panhandle. In the wake of the Deepwater Horizon disaster, when these whales skimmed the ocean surface to filter-feed, they risked ingesting oil that would stick to their baleen plates. The Deepwater Horizon blowout was bad enough, and scientists are still determining the full scope of how exposure to so much oil from this well has affected Bryde’s whales and other marine mammals. But that was neither the first nor the last threat to the Bryde’s whale. Today this small population is in danger of extinction as it faces the impacts of years of oil and gas-caused pollution in the Gulf as well as the threats of further oil and gas exploration and development.

(story continues below)

In April, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) began the process to determine whether or not the Gulf of Mexico population of Bryde’s should be protected under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Defenders and our conservation allies all support an ESA listing for this species. We recently provided the agency with additional information on the many threats the Bryde’s whale faces to reinforce the case for listing the whale as endangered. NMFS will have to make its decision on whether to propose listing the species later this year. The agency estimates that there are 33 individual Bryde’s whales in the Gulf, but given the difficulty in tracking such a small population, there could be as few as just 16 whales. With such a frighteningly small population, losing even a single whale can mean almost certain extinction.

A variety of threats puts the Bryde’s whale in clear and present danger. Like most large whales, Bryde’s can become entangled in fishing gear. This can be an especially serious concern if fishing vessels fail to report an incident, which means no official response to help free the whale. Ships can also run directly into whales, often with deadly consequences. The Gulf of Mexico has some of the busiest ports in the world, and vessel traffic will only increase in the area, making collisions with Bryde’s whales even more likely. Increasing ship traffic, paired with expanding oil and gas exploration and development, also make for a very noisy backyard. Because the pitch of the Bryde’s whale’s call falls within these disruptions, all this noise could drown out their calls to one another, affecting mother-calf communication, causing stress, and even changing vital behaviors like breeding and foraging for food. Climate change also threatens these whales, as rising sea temperatures and levels could affect their food and habitat, while increasingly severe weather events like hurricanes could lead to more oil spills as storms damage drilling platforms.

Although the 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill left lasting impacts on marine mammals in the Gulf, apparently it did not teach lasting lessons. Oil and gas exploration and development continues around the Gulf. The Bureau of Ocean and Energy Management has opened up more areas in the Gulf for oil and gas drilling, including in one area next to Desoto Canyon, a habitat the Gulf of Mexico population of Bryde’s whales needs to survive. Desoto Canyon lies very near where the 2010 blow-out occurred, and where oil exposure and contamination in Bryde’s whales is already highly likely. As drilling in and around the whales’ habitat increases, so does the risk of future devastating spills.

By providing NMFS with additional analysis and research on Bryde’s whales and the myriad threats they face, we have urged the agency to take the next steps to protect this unique and vulnerable population. NMFS will now conduct a comprehensive review of the species’ status and decide whether to propose the Gulf of Mexico population of Bryde’s whale for ESA listing. This decision cannot come soon enough for these imperiled whales.

This week the California Fish & Game Commission adopted regulations to begin implementation of AB711. When completed by 2019, California will officially be lead-free for hunting statewide - great news for wildlife like the California condor!

]]>CA adopts final rules for eliminating lead hunting ammunition to protect wildlife and health

The time has come and the lead is out! This week the California Fish & Game Commission adopted the final regulations that will begin the phase-in of implementation of AB711, California’s law requiring the use of non-lead ammunition for all taking of wildlife in the state. The phase-in will be complete by 2019, at which point California will officially be lead-free for hunting statewide.

In June 2013 the California State Assembly voted in favor of the bill that would require the use of non-lead ammunition throughout the state. In September 2013, the entire State Legislature voted to pass AB711. In October of that year, Governor Jerry Brown signed the historic legislation into law. As one of several organizations that advocated for the bill, it has been a long fight for us here at Defenders, and we couldn’t be more proud of the outcome.

Why are we so proud? This is a huge victory for the health, safety and long-term well-being of people, wildlife and our environment. Lead is toxic and we have known for decades that it can cause severe nervous system damage and even death. We have removed it from household products because of the effects of exposure to humans, including brain damage, learning problems and slowed growth.

Lead can and does have the same and sometimes even worse impacts on wildlife. In wildlife, lead poisoning causes an agonizing death through paralysis and starvation. Lead in the environment pollutes waterways and makes drinking water unsafe for people and wildlife. Lead ammunition is one of the main sources of this poison left in the environment.

Lead bullets often shatter into numerous small fragments inside targeted game animals, posing threats to human health when consumed in game meat and also to wildlife scavengers that consume gut piles of game animals that are left behind on the ground. Some animals also ingest lead when foraging in fields and pick up spent ammunition mistakenly.

In California, our endangered California condors have been most noticeably impacted by ingesting lead, along with other large birds of prey like golden eagles and myriad other species. Fortunately, now that our state leaders have recognized the dangers posed by lead ammunition and the availability of cost and performance-comparable alternatives to it, our endangered wildlife will have one less threat to their recovery.

]]>It is finally time to start saying goodbye to d-CON, a highly toxic rat poison, and that farewell can’t come soon enough for imperiled wildlife. A recent agreement between the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the pesticide’s manufacturer, Reckitt-Benckiser, ensures that d-CON will finally be taken off the shelves. The agreement also brings to an end a long-running effort to force the company to do the right thing and stop selling the product – an effort that Defenders of Wildlife has been a part of for some time.

Owls like this one could become sick or die after eating rodents that had been poisoned by d-CON

The battle over rodenticides goes back to 1998 when the EPA initially proposed steps to protect children, wildlife, and pets from accidental ingestion of rat poisons. But in 2001, in the face of industry opposition, EPA withdrew the requirements. In 2008, the EPA moved forward with regulations, urging rat poison manufacturers to shelve some of their products voluntarily due to unreasonable risks to children, wildlife, and pets, but Reckitt-Benckiser refused to implement the new protections. EPA then issued another order in 2013 cancelling the products’ registration – a move that prohibits the sale of these super-toxic rat poisons without tamper-resistant packaging. Reckitt-Benckiser demanded an administrative hearing to challenge this common-sense precaution. At this point, it was clear the industry was determined to bully the EPA into allowing them to continue the sale of these dangerous substances, which posed a threat not only to children and pets, but to native wildlife as well. In April 2013, Defenders and our allies joined the fight against these substances to support the EPA’s case and provide our expertise on the impact to wildlife.

Meanwhile, the State of California recently took its own action against d-CON products, banning retail sale of that and other anti-coagulant rodenticides in the state starting in July. Not surprisingly, Reckitt-Benckiser also challenged these rules in state court and Defenders again intervened to prevent the company from overturning these new protections.

Even endangered San Joaquin kit foxes felt the impact of d-CON.

The state’s new restrictions sought to protect wildlife, pets, and children from accidental poisonings, which have been documented in at least 25 species of wild animals in California, including mountain lions, hawks, endangered San Joaquin kit foxes, and northern spotted owls, as well as numerous cats and dogs. According to data from the EPA, each year up to 10,000 children are accidentally exposed to rat poisons in their homes. Anticoagulant rodenticides, such as d-CON, interfere with blood clotting, resulting in uncontrollable bleeding, leading to death, and second-generation anticoagulants are especially hazardous. Rats and mice often eat these slow-acting poisons over several days, causing the toxins to accumulate at many times the lethal dose in their tissues, which in turn poisons predators, the innocent victims, when they prey on the weakened rodents. The California Department of Fish and Wildlife tested nearly 500 wild animals between 1995 and 2011, and their study found second-generation anticoagulants in more than 70 percent of wildlife tested, including eagles, hawks, owls, foxes, bobcats, and mountain lions.

After all this fighting, it’s great news that EPA and Reckitt-Benckiser have finally reached an agreement to limit these super-toxic poisons nationwide. As with any significant stride, it won’t happen overnight – the company agreed to stop producing the super-toxic rat poisons by the end of 2014, and to replace them with safer products by March 2015. Shortly after the announcement, Reckitt-Benckiser also dismissed their challenge to the California regulations.

At the end of the day, elimination of these products is a huge win for wildlife, people and pets. Defenders and our conservation allies will continue to watchdog the issue to hold Reckitt-Benckiser accountable and make sure the company follows through with its agreement.

Anne Russell Gregory is the Conservation Law Coordinator for Defenders of Wildlife

Totaling more than 150 million acres, the National Wildlife Refuge System is the world’s largest system of protected areas dedicated first and foremost to wildlife conservation. Yet over 200 national wildlife refuges have existing oil and gas infrastructure including 103 refuges and four wetland management districts that have active oil and gas wells. In total there are more than 5,000 wells, with almost 1,700 of those wells actively producing oil and gas.

]]>On Tuesday, I spoke on behalf of our country’s national wildlife refuge lands and the many species of wildlife that depend on them for survival. Standing before a House Natural Resources Committee subcommittee, I testified at the hearing regarding a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service proposal to develop regulations of privately owned oil and gas underneath national wildlife refuges.

Totaling more than 150 million acres, the National Wildlife Refuge System is the world’s largest system of protected areas dedicated first and foremost to wildlife conservation. Yet over 200 national wildlife refuges have existing oil and gas infrastructure including 103 refuges and four wetland management districts that have active oil and gas wells. In total there are more than 5,000 wells, with almost 1,700 of those wells actively producing oil and gas.

Plastic bags and duct tape used to “fix” a leaky oil pipe on Tensas National Wildlife Refuge.

You might be wondering why this is allowed. In many places around the country the surface of the land is split from what is underneath because the oil and gas or other minerals are valuable. And in those places, where there is important wildlife habitat, the Fish and Wildlife Service is rarely able to acquire the mineral rights underneath the wildlife refuge lands they purchase for protection. Under the constitution, the Fish and Wildlife Service has to allow access to individual’s private property – even if it is underneath the ground.

But the Service can and should have a say in how that access should occur. Unfortunately, because of a bad case the Service lost, and an equally bad legal opinion issued by Reagan administration, the Service has acted for far too long as if it has had no authority whatsoever to impose even minimal reasonable restrictions on this development – until now.

During my testimony, I informed the subcommittee about several instances of unchecked damage to refuges caused by unregulated operations, including several cases that, even after having been reported to me by my staff that encountered them, still shock me to talk about. Brine spills that refuge staff had not been aware of, 55 gallon drums oozing toxic chemicals, oil-topped open waste ponds, abandoned storage tanks and rusted pipes were just some of the harrowing images I shared.

Oil-on-refuges-slide-1

Oil-on-refuges-slide-6

Oil-on-refuges-slide-8

Oil-on-refuges-slide-11

Oil-on-refuges-slide-7

Oil-on-refuges-slide-5

Oil-on-refuges-slide-4

Oil-on-refuges-slide-3

Oil-on-refuges-slide-2

Oil-on-refuges-slide-9

Oil-on-refuges-slide-10

It is important to note that when combined, all of these seemingly “isolated” incidents of impact from oil and gas can be just as dangerous as the large, infamous spills that dominate the media – in fact, even frequent small spills can be deadly over time. A study conducted by the Service on two refuges in Louisiana even found that “levels of oil contamination near oil and gas facilities are lethal to most species of wildlife, even though refuge staff were not aware of any large spills.”

When I presented this information, along with photographs of leaky oil pipes that had been “fixed” using plastic bags and duct tape, I almost couldn’t believe the response that Rep. McAllister gave (view the video here). And, truthfully I thought at first that he was joking when he said that that was an “innovative” solution – that the operator had shown “initiative.” Sadly, Rep. McAllister was not joking, and it is these kinds of attitudes that are devastating our refuges and wildlife, and are costing taxpayers millions of dollars in damages and cleanup bills.

There is simply no reason that our national refuges and the wildlife they support (including many imperiled and endangered species) must suffer because of a gross lack of adequate regulations on operations that have at least basic protections on other types of land ownership situations. Why is it that there is comprehensive and substantive oversight of the same kinds of activities within the National Park System, but not throughout the National Wildlife Refuge System? There is no question that the unchecked activities of private oil and gas operations on refuges have gone on way too long – in many ways the absence of oversight on these lands in this regard has created an environment that resembles a “wild west.” The Service has been charged with protecting these resources and species, and has the authority to do so – it’s high time it puts an end to the gallon drum spills and duct-taped pipes that are the armed bank robberies and town-center duels of some of our nation’s most important federally protected lands.

Noah Matson is Vice President of Lands Conservation for Defenders of Wildlife

Lead is a neurotoxin known to cause severe nervous system damage and even death in both humans and wildlife. Lead ammunition is one of the leading sources of this poison left in the environment. Lead bullets often shatter into numerous small fragments inside targeted game animals, posing threats to human health when consumed in game meat and also to wildlife scavengers and carrion eaters that consume gut piles of game animals that are left behind on the ground. There are cost-comparable, performance-guaranteed alternatives to lead ammunition in the market today. All of these statements lead to one logical conclusion: It’s time to end the use of lead ammunition for sport hunting in this country.

Fortunately for Californians, last week Governor Jerry Brown signed first-in-the-nation legislation that would do just that. The Governor’s historic decision is supported by thousands of citizens, a myriad of agencies and public health and environmental groups, nearly 20 newspapers from across the state, and the California State Senate and Assembly.

This new law builds upon a long-standing federal requirement to use non-lead shot when hunting migratory waterfowl and a recent California law which required the use of non- lead ammunition for hunting within the range of the federally listed condor in California. Condors are among this nation’s most endangered wildlife and lead fragments left behind in the carcasses of dead animals that they feed on have been a leading cause of condor deaths. Lead poisoning has become so serious for condors that they are frequently brought in from the wild to have lead removed from their blood, a painful and hugely stressful process for the birds that is not always successful.

While the federal waterfowl requirement and the earlier California condor law were important victories in the battle to eliminate an unnecessary source of lead from our environment, they were only the beginning of a long but necessary fight. Condors, bald and golden eagles and other skilled hunting birds have continued to perish from lead poisoning picked up from injecting hunting ammunition.

Thankfully, in California, as of last Friday, the state will be leading the nation in an entirely new, lead-free direction.

But while the major shift in policy on lead ammunition in California is a huge step forward, the task of ridding lead from the environment is far from over. The toxic effects of lead do not stop at state lines, so the elimination of lead in hunting should not end at California’s border. Governor Brown’s decision to get lead out of the Golden State has set in motion what we hope will become a wave of actions to eliminate lead ammunition from hunting nationwide. The federal government should follow Governor Brown’s example and end the use of lead ammunition for hunting on public lands, particularly on national wildlife refuges. The other 49 states should also pick up the cause and require non-lead ammunition for hunting on state and private lands.

With all of the health risks and environmental contaminants we contend with on a daily basis, why would we not do ourselves and wildlife a long overdue favor by removing lead ammunition from hunting? Long ago, we stopped poisoning ourselves and our children with lead paint, lead pipes and leaded gasoline, and decades ago we stopped poisoning the environment with lead shot when hunting waterfowl.

Governor Brown has done the courageous thing for the citizens of his state, and now the federal government and other states need to follow his lead and get the lead out of the rest of America.

CA state legislators agree that lead ammunition is too toxic to use, now we hope the governor will, too Kim Delfino, California Program Director What do the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, the California Medical Association, Defenders of Wildlife and Children Now have in common? We all agree that we should not continue to... Read more »

]]>CA state legislators agree that lead ammunition is too toxic to use, now we hope the governor will, too

Kim Delfino, California Program Director

What do the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, the California Medical Association, Defenders of Wildlife and Children Now have in common? We all agree that we should not continue to allow unnecessary amounts of toxic lead to seep into our environment, into our wildlife and into our bodies.

This week, the California Legislature agreed with us as well. Both the California Senate and Assembly voted to pass AB 711, a bill written by Assemblymember Anthony Rendon that would reduce human and wildlife exposure to the poisoning effects of lead by requiring the use of non-lead ammunition when hunting throughout California. California is now one signature away from becoming the first state in the United States to require the use of non-lead ammunition in hunting – Governor Jerry Brown has until October 13th to sign the bill into law.

If the bill becomes law in California, it will be a substantial victory in the long fight to eliminate the use of toxic lead ammunition in hunting. More than one hundred years of scientific research shows that lead is poisonous to humans, condors, golden eagles and over 130 other species, having severe neuromuscular and neurological impacts that can lead to death. Indeed, a five-year review of the status of the iconic, but endangered, California condor recently completed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) found that poisoning from the ingestion of fragments of lead ammunition in carcasses is the leading cause of death among condors and the biggest threat to the birds’ recovery.

While the switch from toxic lead ammunition to non-lead ammunition would seem to make good sense, the National Rifle Association, the National Shooting Sports Foundation and other extreme organizations have created a frenzy of opposition by scaring hunters into thinking that AB 711’s non-lead ammunition requirement would promote an end to hunting in California. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Non-lead ammunition does not fragment like traditional lead ammunition.(c) huntingwithnonlead.org

There is no evidence to suggest that if non-lead ammunition is required for hunting, hunting would cease in the state. In fact, we have seen quite the opposite. When a requirement for the use of non-lead ammunition in hunting of big game in California condor range went into effect in 2008, the number of deer hunting tags INCREASED instead of decreased. Further, there are widely available non-lead ammunition types for every kind of hunting. Peer-reviewed studies have shown that not only are non-lead ammunition alternatives available and effective, they can be obtained for the same cost as their traditional toxic counterparts.

California Department of Fish and Wildlife, a leading proponent of hunting, supports the use of non-lead ammunition. (c) CA Dept. of Fish and Wildlife

Even the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (DFW) – one of the leading proponents of hunting in California and a beneficiary of hunting revenue – agrees that AB 711 makes sense and will not inhibit hunters from engaging in their sport. Furthermore, in a letter to the bill’s author, Assemblymember Rendon, DFW Director Chuck Bonham stated that, “[t]he best available science related to wildlife health shows that spent lead ammunition creates the risk of lead poisoning for wildlife.”

Director Bonham requested three specific changes to the bill, including an additional year for the Department to implement the non-lead requirement, and with those three changes stated that the California DFW would “support” AB 711. The bill was amended to accommodate DFW’s request and, with those changes, the California Department of Fish and Wildlife became the first state wildlife agency to support a statewide requirement for the use of non-lead ammunition in hunting.

The bill’s requirement to use non-lead ammunition instead of toxic lead ammunition when hunting just makes sense. When there are safer ammunition alternatives widely available, there is no good reason for hunters to risk the health of their families by providing game filled with toxic lead particles, and there is no good reason for wildlife to suffer the tormenting effects of ingesting carcasses filled with toxic lead ammunition. Fortunately, California’s doctors, veterinarians, environmentalists, progressive hunters, animal protection advocates, Department of Fish and Wildlife and state legislature all agree. Now, we wait to see if California’s governor will join this large and diverse group to protect California’s people and wildlife from an unnecessary threat that we actually have the power to control.

]]>In Arizona, 4 more highly endangered condors have been killed by lead poisoning, while the toxic fragments continue to build up in the environment.

Courtney Sexton, Communications Associate

When selling or renting a property built prior to 1978 (when lead based paints were commonly used in households), owners and property managers are required by federal law to provide buyers and tenants with a lead disclosure statement and informational pamphlet created by the EPA. This rule has been enacted specifically with the hope that “providing such notification and disclosure will help to reduce the exposure to lead based paint which causes serious lead poisoning especially to children under age 6, who are particularly susceptible to the hazards.” My brother and his wife, both emergency medicine physicians with background in toxicology (they’ve seen some wicked stuff), refuse to even have crystal glassware in their home because it contains traces of lead.

So if simply inhaling dust particles or sipping from a glass containing only fragments of lead can cause severe brain, skeletal and nervous system damage in humans, imagine what ingesting several grams worth of solid lead can do to a 25-pound bird. Great scavenging birds like the California condor are some of the most important members of the ecosystem, playing a role similar to decomposers in that they feed on carrion, which would otherwise provide breeding grounds for disease. However, when the carcasses that condors feed on come from animals that have been killed and left by hunters using lead ammunition, the birds end up getting more than dinner. Condors may be the largest land birds in North America, but their weight doesn’t add up to much when a mass of lead bullet fragments is leaking toxins from their bellies into the rest of their bodies.

Consider one of the recent cases in Arizona where, this past winter alone, lead poisoning killed four of only 72 condors in the Grand Canyon – Zion National Park range. When field biologists tracking the condors found one of the victims, the normally vibrantly pink, fleshy head of the great bird had turned a pale, sickly yellow and was tucked listlessly beneath her wing feathers. Back at the field station, hopes of administering detox treatment were dashed. Within a few short hours, she lay motionless. A necropsy concluded what the conservation team already knew – the condor had died from lead poisoning, the telltale fragments of bullets found scattered throughout her gut.

For the folks on our conservation team, losses like these are some of the most wrenching because they are so entirely preventable. And, what’s worse, though condors are the most endangered species suffering here, they aren’t the only ones. Our country’s iconic bald eagles, along with golden eagles and other skilled hunters, are frequent victims.

Especially for the condors, a species that continues to struggle in the face of extinction, the number of deaths caused by lead poisoning is devastating. In 2008, California passed a bill requiring the use of non-lead ammunition when hunting big game in the condor habitat region. That was a huge success, but we haven’t stopped there. Defenders has continued the fight to “get the lead out” and, this past April, Defenders supported legislation in California to expand the non-lead ammunition regulations to include all hunting. Unfortunately, while Arizona has put forth efforts to reduce lead in the environment, including offering vouchers for lead-free ammunition, the four recent casualties in that state indicate the condor is still at high risk.

The arguments against lead-free ammunition are weighted by misguided perceptions from many hunters who fear it will spell an end to their freedom in the field. This isn’t the case, as we can see by simple facts like, since the requirement in California to use non-lead ammo in large game hunting in condor range was implemented, hunting tag sales for deer have increased rather than decreased (not to mention nowhere in the bill does language imply a hunting ban). Likewise, any marksman worried about the quality of alternatives need only ask a fellow hunter who has tried them – studies have shown that there is no perceivable difference in accuracy or efficacy between lead and non-lead ammunition, and that some alternatives, like copper, even have advantages over their lead counterparts.

The reality of the situation is that requiring the use of non-lead ammunition for hunting is an easy way to make the environment that much less toxic to wildlife, and to us. If the survival of the condor isn’t enough of a motivating factor for AZ residents to join the movement to “get the lead out,” perhaps the thought of increasing the amount of toxic lead in the human body by 50% by eating lead-laced venison is.

As a wildlife biologist and former director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, I know first-hand the harm lead can cause to condors, eagles and other species of wildlife that ingest it. These mighty birds are innocent victims that often scavenge carcasses of big game animals left by hunters. Little do they know that what they have just eaten could kill them.

The fact that lead is toxic is old news. Decades ago, we took the lead out of paint, gasoline, cans used for food storage and even pipes. I remember growing up and seeing ads warning parents about lead paint in our homes. When I sold my first home, I had to fill out a lead paint disclosure form. And, as a biologist with the Fish and Wildlife Service, I remember the Service requiring the use of non-lead ammunition for the hunting of waterfowl throughout the United States. Clearly, our country has been serious about getting the lead out for some time.

So even though hunters have used steel shot to hunt ducks for more than two decades, why are they still using lead bullets for hunting everything else? And why are there people stridently advocating to keep using lead ammunition for hunting? You would think they would be concerned about their own health if not for the health of our wildlife.

Fifty years of scientific research has shown that the presence of lead in the environment poses an ongoing threat to the health of the general public and the viability of our state’s wildlife, including the California condor, bald eagle and golden eagle. Dr. Don Smith, Professor at the Department of Microbiology and Environmental Toxicology at UC Santa Cruz stated, “Lead-based ammunition is likely the greatest, largely unregulated source of lead knowingly discharged into the environment in the U.S.”

Lead bullets fragment into tiny pieces when they hit an animal during hunting. These small lead fragments are then easily digested by humans as well as wildlife that eat the gut piles of dead animals. Animals also ingest lead when foraging in fields and pick up spent ammunition mistakenly. These lead fragments are highly toxic in the humans and animals that digest them. In humans, exposure to lead causes brain damage, learning problems and slowed growth. For children, no amount of lead exposure is acceptable. In wildlife, lead poisoning causes an agonizing death through paralysis and starvation.

Fortunately, California has always been a forward-thinking state on environmental issues, starting the dialogue on many of the significant conservation issues of our times. And so it is again, with the state Senate’s Natural Resources Committee recent 7-1 vote in favor of Assembly Bill (AB) 711 (authored by Assemblymembers Anthony Rendon and Richard Pan), bringing California one step closer to enacting the first law in the nation that would require the use of non-lead ammunition for all hunting.

These scientists are experts in lead and environmental health from universities, hospitals and laboratories from around the United States, England and Canada. And they were unequivocal in their assessment of lead’s toxicity and their support for the reduction and elimination of the use of lead ammo in order to protect human and environmental health. Their research provides overwhelming evidence that lead is toxic; that lead ammunition in the environment poses significant health risks to humans and wildlife; that there is no level of lead exposure to children known to be without deleterious effects and that lead poisoning poses a serious and significant threat to wildlife.

Who would you trust with your health, your children’s health and that of our wildlife: world renowned scientists or lobbyists from the gun and ammo industry?

There is clearly no scientifically valid reason why wildlife and humans should continue to be threatened with lead poisoning from lead ammunition. Opponents of the bill are just ignoring the facts – just like those who fought against getting lead out of gasoline, paint and cans used for food.

AB 711 is a reasonable and common sense solution to a public health and environmental threat. Given the toxic threat from lead ammunition, there is no legitimate reason to continue to use toxic lead ammunition when non-lead alternatives are effective and comparative in price.

The elected officials of California have an opportunity to once again be environmental leaders for our country and pass this first ever requirement for the use of non-lead ammunition. Hopefully some day, the thought of using lead ammunition to hunt will seem as foreign and foolish as using lead paint in our homes is today.

We knew it was coming, and now it’s here. The multi-front attack on the Endangered Species Act (ESA) initiated in the last Congress has been renewed with a vengeance. Although the current Congress is less than five months old, more than a dozen bills and amendments have already been drafted to undermine our nation’s landmark wildlife protection law and conservation of the creatures it so effectively saves.

Piping plovers are one of several bird species that benefit from the beach’s protection.

One attack advancing quickly in both the House and Senate (H.R. 819 and S. 486) would overturn urgently needed and highly effective protections for federally endangered nesting turtles and threatened shorebirds at the Cape Hatteras National Seashore, located along the North Carolina coast. Protections from off-road vehicles were established by the National Park Service after an extensive public process, with input from a variety of stakeholders. There is significant evidence that the Park Service’s protections are working: wildlife populations have rebounded, visitation to the seashore has increased and the local economy is improving. Nevertheless, members of the North Carolina congressional delegation are pressing this damaging legislation, which to date has passed out of committee in the House and is likely to be considered by the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee in June.

In March, the Senate budget resolution, which establishes the blueprint for all the federal government spending, became a magnet for anti-wildlife amendments. In all, five separate damaging amendments were developed, including ones to block particular species from being added to the endangered species list or to force their removal. Both the iconic greater sage-grouse and the Gunnison sage-grouse were a particular focus of these amendments. Fortunately, following strong opposition from Defenders of Wildlife and other groups, all but one of these efforts ultimately failed.

San Joaquin kit fox

The House and Senate farm bills have also become an intense legislative battleground for preserving imperiled species and the ESA. The Senate may soon vote on an amendment to the farm bill by Senator James Inhofe (R-OK) that would delay the listing of the lesser prairie chicken, an imperiled species that has already been waiting fifteen years for federal protection. Other amendments that have been proposed would remove Endangered Species Act protections from species found only in one state, such as the critically endangered Hawaiian monk seal, San Joaquin kit fox and key deer, and require burdensome economic analysis before protecting species.

Meanwhile the House farm bill (H.R. 1947), now awaiting floor consideration, would bar the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from taking action to protect endangered species from harmful pesticides without the voluntary agreement of a pesticide manufacturer. Another provision would result in the direct application of pesticides into streams and rivers without any oversight under the Clean Water Act. Commonly used pesticides continue to harm endangered salmon, frogs, sea turtles and pollinating bees, and kill more than 67 million birds every year. By continuing to rely on the ESA’s science-based procedures and following the recommendations of expert biologists, the EPA can prevent the unnecessary poisoning of endangered creatures and preserve the economic benefits that those animals provide.

As if this record pace of attacks wasn’t enough, some members of the House recently announced the formulation of a new Endangered Species Working Group composed of numerous legislators known to be hostile to the Act. We are bracing ourselves for the damaging legislative proposals this group may propose.

Just months into the new Congress, it is clear that we will have our work cut out for us in defending endangered species. These recent developments make our new Conservation Crossroads campaign all the more important. If you haven’t already joined our expanded effort to recover listed species and defend the ESA, please consider doing so. Given the current challenges facing endangered species, we need all the help we can get to protect the 2,000 species that depend on the ESA for their very survival and recovery.

Rat and mouse poison is used by homeowners across the nation to kill unwanted pests. Most of us know how important it is to keep these deadly toxins away from children and pets. But did you know they can also harm our native wildlife?

Certain rodenticides can interfere with blood clotting and cause the victim to bleed to death. In the absence of safeguards, they can be dangerous to bobcats, foxes, owls, and other animals that are apt to eat poisoned rats or mice. Recently, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) determined that these rodenticides pose an unreasonable risk to children and wildlife, and issued a notice of intent to cancel them on February 5, 2013.

The Environmental Protection Agency registers pesticides for public use under the Federal Insecticide Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). Under the law, EPA can cancel already-registered products that it later finds pose unreasonable risks to children, pets and wildlife. But rather than simply banning a dangerous product from the market, EPA is required under federal law to formally “cancel” the registration. Once EPA issues of a notice of intent to cancel, most manufacturers work with EPA to take their products off the market voluntarily.

But they don’t have to.

In fact, a pesticide manufacturer can challenge the EPA’s decision by requesting an administrative hearing in front of an administrative law judge. If they lose, they can then seek a hearing in the Federal Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. It’s a process that can take years. Meanwhile, unless the EPA takes emergency action (which provides additional process rights for the manufacturer), the product remains on the market the entire time.

Had all manufacturers agreed to the EPA’s recent decision to cancel several dangerous rodenticides, a ban would have gone into effect on March 7. Most of the manufacturers did, but on March 6th, the pesticide manufacturer Reckitt Benckiser Inc. requested a hearing in response to the EPA’s notice of intent to cancel a dozen of the company’s D-Con mouse and rat poison products, averting the ban that otherwise would have taken effect. This is the first time in more than 20 years that a company has requested a cancellation hearing and declined to voluntarily work with the EPA to remove an unsafe product.

According to the EPA, “Reckitt Benckiser’s course of action will result in continued unsafe exposures of D-Con products to children, pets, and wildlife while the hearing takes place. Of the nearly 30 companies that produce or market mouse and rat poison products in the U.S., Reckitt Benckiser is the only one that has refused to adopt the safety measures that greatly reduce child, pet, and non-target wildlife exposure to mouse and rat poisons.” That’s where Defenders of Wildlife comes in.

With the assistance of Earthjustice, Defenders has now gotten involved in the case to defend EPA’s action. EPA is trying to protect wildlife and children from the damaging and even lethal effects of rat poison but Reckitt Benckiser insists on putting profits first. To their shame, they are the one company that still refuses to comply with reasonable safety standards. We will do our best to see that EPA wins this fight for our kids and our wildlife heritage.

Yesterday, we took one more important step in the effort to protect wildlife and human health from the toxic effects of lead ammunition. The California Assembly Committee on Water, Parks and Wildlife Committee passed a bill, by a vote of 9-5, that would require the use of non-lead ammo for all hunting in the state, putting California well on its way to being the first state to enact non-lead ammunition requirements.

The committee vote came one day after the bill’s authors, Assemblymember Anthony Rendon and Assemblymember Richard Pan, stood on the steps of the State Capitol with a scientist, a hunter, a veterinarian and Tesla the golden eagle, to outline why it is critical for California to remove lead from ammunition used to hunt wildlife. “Lead is a toxicant that is bad for human health and the environment, and lead ammunition exposes humans and other animals to this life-threatening poison,” said Assemblymember Rendon.

Lead is a known toxin that we have already removed from everything from paint to gasoline to pencils to pipes. Fifty years of scientific research has shown that the presence of lead in the environment poses an ongoing threat to the health of the general public and the viability of the state’s wildlife, including the California condor, bald eagle and golden eagle. Dr. Don Smith, Professor, Department of Microbiology and Environmental Toxicology at UC Santa Cruz stated, “Lead based ammunition is likely the greatest, largely unregulated source of lead knowingly discharged into the environment in the U.S.”

Lead bullets fragment into tiny pieces when they hit an animal during hunting. These small lead fragments are then easily digested by humans as well as wildlife that eat the gut pile of dead animals. Animals also ingest lead when foraging in fields and pick up spent ammunition mistakenly. These lead fragments are highly toxic in the humans and animals that digest them. In humans, exposure to lead causes brain damage, learning problems and slowed growth and, for children, no amount of lead exposure is allowable. In wildlife, lead poisoning causes an agonizing death through paralysis and starvation.

Given the toxic threat from lead ammunition, there is no legitimate reason to oppose the use of non-lead ammunition when non-lead alternatives are available, effective and comparative in price with lead ammunition. As Assemblymember Mike Gatto stated in the committee hearing, “This is the right thing to do. We don’t hunt with poisoned darts for a reason and we shouldn’t use toxic ammunition for hunting.”

Former Fish and Game Commissioner and an avid hunter Judd Hanna testified in support of the bill in committee. Mr. Hanna was one of 27 distinguished hunters from California – including the current President and Vice President of the Fish and Game Commission – who sent a letter in support of the bill because they believe it is a reasonable and prudent solution to a public health and environmental threat. Defenders has been working on this issue for years, is a sponsor of this bill, and one of the organizations leading a broad coalition working to pass it. Now we’ve secured a majority of the members of the California Assembly Water, Parks and Wildlife Committee to vote to ban this toxic substance. Let’s hope the full California Assembly embraces the cause as well. Stay tuned.

]]>http://www.defendersblog.org/2013/04/a-step-closer-to-lead-free/feed/1Get the Lead Out of Ammunition to Protect Wildlife and Human Healthhttp://www.defendersblog.org/2013/04/get-the-lead-out-of-ammunition-to-protect-wildlife-and-human-health/
http://www.defendersblog.org/2013/04/get-the-lead-out-of-ammunition-to-protect-wildlife-and-human-health/#commentsThu, 11 Apr 2013 14:07:32 +0000http://www.defendersblog.org/?p=21876 by Kim Delfino

When it comes to getting lead out of the environment, the science is on our side: 30 acclaimed scientists have signed a statement detailing why we need to get rid of lead hunting ammo, for the safety of people and wildlife.

Who do you think we should be listening when it comes to wildlife policy? Scientists or lead ammo lobbyists? That’s the key question confronting the California state legislature as it considers a bill requiring the use of non-lead ammunition for hunting.

Lead ammo poses a significant threat to wildlife, not the least of which is the imperiled California condor. Hunters shoot their prey with lead ammo and carrion eaters like condors and eagles come along and feast on the remains, swallowing lead shot in the process. The poison then works its way into their system and they slowly die an agonizing death.

But a bill introduced into California’s Legislature (AB 711) would require the use of non-lead ammunition in the killing of wildlife in California. It faces its first vote April 16th when it will be taken up by the Assembly Water, Parks and Wildlife Committee.

These scientists are experts in lead and environmental health from universities, hospitals and laboratories from around the United States, England and Canada. And they were unequivocal in their assessment of lead’s toxicity and their support for the reduction and elimination of the use of lead ammo in order to protect human and environmental health. Here are a few excerpts from this statement:

“Lead is one of the most well-studied of all anthropogenic toxins and there is overwhelming scientific evidence that demonstrates . . .[l]ead is toxic . . ….”

“There is no level of lead exposure to children known to be without deleterious effects (CDC, 2012).”

“Lead-based ammunition is likely the greatest, largely unregulated source of lead knowingly discharged into the environment in the United States. In contrast, other significant sources of lead in the environment, such as leaded gasoline, lead-based paint, and lead-based solder, are recognized as harmful and have been significantly reduced or eliminated over the past 50 years.”

“The discharge of lead-based ammunition and accumulation of lead-spent ammunition in the environment poses significant health risks to humans and wildlife.”

This last point was sadly illustrated when the golden eagle mentioned in my last blog post died in mid-March, just five days before the scientists’ statement was issued. The eagle was poisoned by eating lead ammunition fragments in a carcass. Despite heroic efforts by the veterinary staff at the Bird and Pet Clinic in Roseville, California, to bring down the extraordinarily high lead levels in this majestic bird, the damage was done and the eagle died of respiratory failure.

There is no scientifically valid reason why wildlife and humans should continue to be threatened with lead poisoning from lead ammunition. Opponents of the bill are just ignoring the facts – just like those who fought against getting lead out of gasoline, paint and cans used for food. Fortunately, science and common sense prevailed in those efforts. I can only hope we listen to the scientists again and California legislators ultimately approve this important bill. Stay tuned!

]]>http://www.defendersblog.org/2013/04/get-the-lead-out-of-ammunition-to-protect-wildlife-and-human-health/feed/0It’s Time to Get the Lead Outhttp://www.defendersblog.org/2013/03/its-time-to-get-the-lead-out/
http://www.defendersblog.org/2013/03/its-time-to-get-the-lead-out/#commentsTue, 12 Mar 2013 14:04:42 +0000http://www.defendersblog.org/?p=21543 by Kim Delfino

After decades of watching lead hunting ammunition poison people, wildlife and the environment, we're teaming up with several other groups to support a bill that could ban lead ammunition entirely in the state of California.

This year, California has the opportunity to become a leader in the effort to protect wildlife and people from lead poisoning. Assemblymember Anthony Rendon has introduced a bill (AB 711) into the California State Assembly to require the use of non-toxic ammunition when hunting. Because we are committed to protecting native animals in their natural environments, Defenders of Wildlife – along with with our partner organizations – will be working hard to help pass this important bill. If California enacts the law this year, it will be the first state to eliminate the use of lead ammunition for hunting statewide. More than fifty years of scientific research has shown that the presence of lead in the environment poses an ongoing threat to the health of the general public and the viability of the state’s wildlife, including federally-listed endangered and threatened species such as the California condor, and our national symbol, the bald eagle. The time is long overdue to protect people and wildlife from this toxic threat.

Golden eagle

You don’t have to look very far from Sacramento – where this bill was introduced and will be voted on — to see the urgency behind the effort to get lead ammunition out of the environment. Just last week, a bald eagle died from lead poisoning at the California Raptor Center at the University of California at Davis. The bird was rescued from a creek bed in Tehama County after it was found blind and listless, unable to take care of itself or its nest. This is nesting season in California, and the eagle was likely out looking for food to feed its mate. With the death of this eagle, its mate will have to leave the nest to find food, greatly increasing the odds that the nest will fail.

The very same week, a golden eagle suffering from lead poisoning was picked up at a reservoir near Maxwell in Colusa County. She was found on her belly, pulling herself along the hillside using her wings, with her useless legs dragging behind her. She is currently receiving very expensive treatment at the Bird and Pet Clinic in Roseville, California. It is very likely that both birds were poisoned from eating carcasses left over from hunters using lead ammunition, and these are just two examples of an issue that has plagued wildlife for decades throughout the state and across the country.

Lead isn’t only a threat to wildlife. It also puts humans in danger. California Assemblymember Richard Pan is a co-author of AB 711, and as a pediatrician and chairman of the Assembly Committee on Health, he understands the effects that eating game shot with lead ammunition can have on people. As a potent neurotoxin, there is no safe exposure level to lead for humans. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency defines lead as toxic, stating that it can affect almost every organ and system in the human body, including the heart, bones, intestines, kidneys and reproductive and nervous systems. It is also extremely toxic to children, causing potentially permanent learning and behavioral disorders.

The requirement in AB 711 to eliminate the use of lead ammunition in hunting is the next step in a long effort by environmental and public health organizations to eliminate lead in its many forms from our environment. This bill would protect both people and wildlife by requiring the use of non-toxic – meaning non-lead —ammunition when hunting. This rule would be phased in over a two-year period in order to give hunters and sporting goods stores time to make the switch. Thankfully, non-toxic, non-lead ammunition is readily available and affordable, which will make the transition even easier.

In 1991, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service required the use of non-toxic shot for waterfowl hunting and, in 2007, the California Legislature required the same for big-game hunting within California condor territory. After these restrictions on the use of lead ammunition went into effect, hunting continued to thrive instead of disappearing as some critics had argued would happen. Indeed, we have seen an increase in the availability of non-toxic ammunition, which has been found to perform as well as, or better than, lead-based ammunition (click here for a video demonstration). Unfortunately, current restrictions on lead ammunition, while benefiting waterfowl and condors, are limited in geographic scope and to the hunting of specific species, which leaves most other wildlife vulnerable to this toxic metal. More protections are needed, and needed now.

In April, the Assembly Water, Parks and Wildlife Committee will vote on this important bill. Defenders – along with Audubon California, the Humane Society of the United States and Physicians for Social Responsibility – will be heading up the effort to pass AB 711 and protect California’s wildlife from the deadly effects of lead poisoning. As the vote gets closer, we will keep you informed about this bill’s progress and, for our members in California, the opportunities for you to weigh in with your state legislators. Working together, we can get the lead out of California.

]]>http://www.defendersblog.org/2013/03/its-time-to-get-the-lead-out/feed/4Get the Lead Out for Wildlifehttp://www.defendersblog.org/2013/02/get-the-lead-out-for-wildlife/
http://www.defendersblog.org/2013/02/get-the-lead-out-for-wildlife/#commentsThu, 07 Feb 2013 15:53:46 +0000http://www.defendersblog.org/?p=21243 by Kim Delfino

Even though science shows that lead ammunition can have devastating consequences for humans and wildlife, it is still widely used for hunting across the U.S. With people, wildlife and the environment on the line, it's time to start talking seriously about getting the lead out.

This week, the California Fish and Game Commission was supposed to demonstrate the use of non-lead ammunition. They were going to show how there was no practical difference in the use of non-lead ammunition and lead ammunition – except for one very important distinction: non-lead ammunition is not toxic and won’t poison wildlife and humans. Unfortunately, that demonstration never happened because the shooting range owners pulled the plug on the event at the 11th hour.

It is too bad because the demonstration of the use of non-lead ammunition would have been an important educational moment for the hunting community – one that would have benefited their health and safety, as well as that of their family and of California’s wildlife. The dangers of lead as a poison to humans is widely known. That is why it is banned from everyday items such as gasoline, paint, pencils and water pipes. Everyone knows that even a little exposure to lead can seriously poison a child. What some may not know is that even a little exposure to lead can seriously poison wildlife as well. A single ingested shotgun pellet or lead fragment can cause a horrible death in birds and other wildlife. Lead poisoning isn’t pretty. It affects the brain and collects in the bloodstream and organs. Birds with lead poisoning are slow and lethargic, unable to sustain flying or eating. They lose weight and are unable to navigate around things like wind turbines, buildings and power lines. They are too slow and tired to avoid predators.

Lead was such a threat to waterfowl that in 1991, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service banned the use lead ammunition in waterfowl hunting. This was great news for waterfowl, but today other birds are still threatened by lead ammunition. Raptors, such as the highly-endangered California condor, the golden eagle and the bald eagle, suffer most from lead poisoning because they eat the carcasses of animals left behind by hunters. Lead poisoning is one of the leading obstacles to the recovery of the California condors. Biologists have to bring in condors regularly to “chelate” them – that is, treat their blood to remove lead.

States are beginning to address the problem of lead ammunition. At least 25 states have banned lead shot for hunting specific species beyond what the federal government prohibited for the hunting of waterfowl. Sixteen states have banned the use of lead ammunition in dove hunting. In 2007, Defenders of Wildlife worked to enact a state law banning the use of lead ammunition within the range of the California condor. A recent study by the University of California at Davis Wildlife Health Center found that lead levels in raptors such as golden eagles and turkey vultures within the range of the ban were reduced after the ban went into effect . Unfortunately, that ban covers less than 15 percent of the state of California, and wildlife is being poisoned by lead in the rest of the state.

Despite these limitations on the use of lead in some hunting activities, hunters are still depositing huge amounts of the toxic metal into the environment through the hunting of all animals other than waterfowl (and doves in some states). In fact, frequently-used upland hunting fields, including those in California, may have as many as 400,000 shotgun pellets per acre. And biologists are continuing to find carcasses of birds dead from lead poisoning. The time has come to ban the use of lead ammunition in hunting statewide in California.

Some in the hunting community resist a ban on the use of lead ammunition. They claim that there are no good alternatives to lead ammunition. That isn’t true. If the California Fish and Game Commission demonstration on the use of lead ammunition had taken place, they would have seen that there are very viable and low-cost non-lead ammunition alternatives on the market today. These are bullets that hunters are already buying and using.

What the Fish and Game Commission demonstration would have also shown is that lead ammunition fragments inside the body of whatever the hunter is shooting and also poses a risk to whoever is eating the meat from that animal. For example, x-rays of deer carcasses shot by lead ammunition show a body riddled with tiny fragments of lead. These tiny pieces of lead can’t be removed and are eaten by whoever is eating the meat – the hunter and his/her family. Tests by the Center for Disease Control have shown that eating venison and other game can raise the amount of lead in the human body by 50 percent! This has caused states like North Dakota to issue health warnings to pregnant women and children not to eat game shot by lead ammunition.

With the overwhelming evidence of the threat of lead poisoning to humans and wildlife from the use of lead ammunition, and the fact that there are safe, cheap and viable non-lead ammunition alternatives, why do we still allow the use of lead ammunition in hunting? The time has come to get the lead out!

When an oil spill or chemical leak threatens our nation's wildlife, this program is there to investigate the cause, restore habitat, and prevent future incidents. Now its already-stretched budget could be cut even further, begging the question: when the next spill happens, who will be there to clean up the mess?

Specialists from the Environmental Contaminants Program respond to an overturned train, taking quick action to prevent diesel from running into a nearby creek. (Credit: USFWS)

In our modern world, there are a myriad of harmful pollutants, many potentially lethal, that adversely affect fish, wildlife, habitat and people. These include pesticides, endocrine disruptors, heavy metals, prescription drugs, oil and other industrial chemicals, fertilizers and numerous other products that are released into the environment through spills, disposal, ongoing use or other means. In recent studies of major rivers and streams, one or more pesticides have been found more than 90 percent of the time, and in more than 80 percent of the fish sampled. This may also be causing declines in pollinators such as bees and birds, as well as declines and deformities in frogs and other amphibians.

The Fish and Wildlife Service, through its Environmental Contaminants Program, is the primary federal agency responsible for protecting fish, wildlife and habitat from damaging pollutants. It identifies and assesses their effects, works to prevent exposure, and leads restoration of the resources that these poisons damage. If the federal budget goes off the so-called “fiscal cliff” at the end of the month and triggers significant funding cuts, or an overall budget agreement produces similar impacts, vulnerable wildlife will face an even greater threat from dangerous substances.

Disaster Investigation and Recovery
One of the most important responsibilities of the program is its leadership in Natural Resource Damage Assessment and Restoration to recover fish, wildlife and habitat injured from oil spills or the release of other hazardous substances. When these incidents occur, the Contaminants Program investigates the damage and, if it’s not already known, determines who is responsible and negotiates with them for restitution. Then, using that money, the program works with other stakeholders on restoration projects like these:

In 2006, they reached a settlement of more than $2 million with DuPont to restore wetland and river habitat in Delaware that had been damaged by releases of lead, cadmium and zinc from 1902 to 1984 during production of pigment.

In 2009, they reached a settlement of more than $12 million with parties responsible for damage from the Palmerton Zinc Pile Superfund Site in Pennsylvania, where zinc smelting had been releasing metals like arsenic, chromium, lead, manganese, copper cadmium and zinc for most of the 20th century.

The program is currently working to determine what restoration efforts it will take to mitigate damages to natural resources from PCBs that were discharged from manufacturing plants in and around the Hudson River. Studies are underway to assess how the substances may have contaminated the area’s fish, mink, sediment, waterfowl and other birds.

The USFWS responds to the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, bringing oiled birds like this pelican to stabilization facilities where they can be cleaned, rehabilitated, and released (Credit: Coast Guard Petty Officer 2nd Class John D Miller)

Since 1992, the program has negotiated more than $785 million in settlements from responsible parties to restore natural resources that are held in trust for the American people. That number predates the damage from the devastating 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil disaster in the Gulf of Mexico, for which damages are still being assessed.

The Deepwater Horizon spill is now widely recognized as the worst oil spill in American history, with damage to natural resources likely to total in the billions. One billion dollars in early damages has already been provided for restoration, and will fund restoration projects like protecting and restoring habitat for beach-nesting birds in the Florida Panhandle, Alabama and Mississippi by marking and preventing disturbance of key sites, increasing predator control to reduce loss of chicks, eggs and nesting adults, and increasing surveillance and monitoring of nesting sites. It will also help with projects to restore nesting habitat for loggerhead sea turtles in Florida and Alabama by reducing artificial lighting through eliminating, retrofitting or replacing existing light fixtures.

The Contaminants Program also makes sure that teams are ready and able to respond to spills and chemical releases. This includes pre-incident planning and training, incident response, and post-incident assessment and restoration. However, chronic underfunding of regular operations has made it more difficult for the program to maintain enough expert contaminant biologists, given that contaminant biology is a highly specialized field. Moreover, when a major incident occurs and significant staff resources from the Contaminants Program are used to address it, ongoing restoration efforts from prior incidents often suffer as a result. Stretching insufficient resources is a challenge already faced by many programs that affect wildlife and habitats, but we should be especially concerned when the program that reacts to oil spills, chemical leaks and other contaminations does not have the resources to do its job.

The program already lacks the funding for its current needs, and any additional cuts will further undermine the work needed to prevent harm to vulnerable wildlife from dangerous pollutants. For example:

There are currently no criteria to describe what levels of many contaminants are safe or unsafe for wildlife, and this program is working to develop them.

New studies have shown that fish and wildlife populations are more seriously affected by mercury than previously known, especially birds such as the American kestrel, American white ibis, snowy egret and tri-colored heron, and other animals that consume fish and insects contaminated by mercury. The program needs to investigate to determine the extent of these impacts.

The number of oil spill inland and in or near rivers is expected to increase in coming years due to the aging of the U.S. oil pipeline infrastructure, much of which is already more than 50 years old. As a result, there will be a growing number of damaging spills like the one in the Kalamazoo River in Michigan in 2010 that spilled over 800,000 gallons of oil and devastated wildlife across the region, including wood ducks, swans, great blue herons, mink, turtles, snakes, frogs and toads. Another spill in the Yellowstone River in Montana spilled about 50,000 gallons of oil and harmed wetlands and wildlife including the endangered pallid sturgeon, waterfowl and wading birds. It is absolutely crucial that the Contaminants Program be able to reach out to land management agencies and train them in the proper procedures in the event of a spill on their lands to ensure that the Contaminants Program will be called immediately both to protect wildlife in spill areas from harm, and to ensure that damages to the public’s wildlife and habitats are properly quantified for restitution before the evidence dissipates or washes away.

The Contaminants Program’s funding level has basically stayed the same since 2001, yet its workload has only grown and its small team of expert contaminant biologists is far overstretched. Please click here tell your members of Congress that you support a balanced approach to address the budget deficit — one that does not include further cuts to programs that protect wildlife from dangerous pollutants.

Defenders' President Jamie Rappaport Clark reflects on the courageous leadership of Rachel Carson, who jump-started the modern environmental movement with a groundbreaking book about harmful pesticides.

Fifty years ago today, a small book was published that awakened us all to the plight of our planet and arguably changed the course of history. I know it changed mine.

Rachel Carson (1907-1964), author of Silent Spring, pictured here in 1940 as a biologist with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Silent Spring was the book, and its author Rachel Carson was one of the early pioneer women scientists to work for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service during the 1930s. Decades later, I would follow in her footsteps, both literally and figuratively. As a biologist working for the same agency during the ‘90s, I had the great fortune to occupy her old office in the Department of the Interior building for part of my tenure. Then, when I was appointed director of the Fish and Wildlife Service in 1997, I stood on her shoulders as I led the federal government’s efforts to protect America’s natural heritage.

I remember reading Silent Spring for the first time when I was in high school. By then, DDT had already been banned nationwide, but America’s wildlife was still reeling from its devastating effects. Carson’s prescient writings compelled me to recognize the damage being done to the planet, especially the majestic birds that I had grown to love as a child. Through her eyes, I also began to see that it was within our power to stop the poisoning of our environment and save the growing number of species teetering on the brink of extinction.

During college I became more hopeful as I oversaw the release of captive-bred endangered peregrine falcons back into the wild. Falcon populations had plummeted after decades of using DDT, which made eggshells too thin and caused them to break. But thanks to dedicated conservation efforts and tougher pesticide restrictions, falcons, bald eagles and many other birds of prey were finally starting to recover. I felt very fortunate to play a direct role in righting a wrong, undoing decades of uncontrolled pesticide use and poor management of our most vulnerable species.

Peregrine falcons are one of many species that suffered greatly from decades of DDT poisoning. They have made a strong recovery as a result of conservation efforts and tougher pesticide restrictions brought on–at least in part–by the publication of Silent Spring.

For me, this was the power of Silent Spring. Rachel Carson didn’t just rail against the use of pesticides and the careless destruction of our wildlife. She helped prescribe a solution using both scientific evidence and her love of nature to back it up. This approach is what inspired an entire generation of environmental activists to protect our air, our water, our wildlife and the habitat they depend upon.

I’ve often reflected back on Rachel Carson’s incredible courage and leadership as she challenged agricultural scientists and the government to change how the natural word was viewed and protected. I’ve done my best throughout my career to highlight the importance of science, stewardship, and ethical responsibility and to emulate her courageous leadership as well.

Now, as president of Defenders of Wildlife (of which Carson was briefly a board member), I’m privileged to carry on that legacy. Each day presents a new opportunity to raise awareness of the threats facing our wildlife and the habitats they need to survive. Fueled by the passion of our members and supporters and grounded in sound science, we aim to make positive changes that ultimately benefit all Americans. In that respect, the message of Silent Spring is as relevant today as it was in 1962.

After 50 years, I wish I could say that all our problems have been solved. Instead, we’ve replaced DDT with other dangerous pesticides, we continue to lose more wildlife habitat each year at an alarming rate, the number of species on the brink of extinction continues to climb, and global warming threatens to throw many ecosystems out of balance. Yet, I’m still hopeful. And I firmly believe we can achieve lasting solutions to the environmental challenges we face today.

People everywhere are waking up to the reality of pollution and climate change and the loss of biodiversity, and they’re realizing it’s up to all of us to make a difference. Thankfully, like those of us who grew up reading Silent Spring decades ago, a new generation has recognized that nothing is more important than protecting the planet that sustains us all. With our collective efforts to create a cleaner, greener future, Rachel Carson’s spirit and call to action lives on.

]]>Toxic levels of pollutants are putting endangered sea turtles at risk, according to a recent report from Science Daily News. Chemicals from consumer products like stain-fighting coatings and flame-resistant materials make their way to the sea, where they are ingested by filter feeders like mussels and sponges.

When sea turtles eat these animals, the toxins accumulate in the turtle’s tissues and can poison them causing symptoms such as suppressed immunity, thyroid disruption, and liver and neurological damage.

The researchers, from the Hollings Marine Laboratory along with the College of Charleston’s Grice Marine Laboratory, NOAA’s National Marine Fisheries Service and the Loggerhead Marine life Center, worry that these sea turtles could be in serious danger. Oil spills and shrimp trawling nets already threaten their survival.

In the hope that such a study could help conservationists prepare for these new threats, researchers focused on Kemp’s ridley, leather back, hawksbill, loggerhead, and green turtles. The International Union for Conservation of Nature lists all five species as endangered.

]]>When prairie dogs are poisoned with Rozol—an extremely dangerous pesticide—it’s not just the prairie dogs that perish. So do countless other species that rely on prairie dogs for food and shelter.

Black-footed ferrets rely on large prairie dog colonies for food and shelter.

Black-footed ferrets can only survive where there are enough prairie dogs for them to feast on. Burrowing owls use prairie dogs holes to escape from hungry predators. Badgers, golden eagles, swift foxes and dozens of other species benefit from having healthy prairie dog colonies around.

That’s why Rozol is so pernicious. The dust is left behind in prairie dog burrows where it can kill any number of species. But it doesn’t stop there. Rozol is toxic enough to kill any subsequent animal that feeds on the poisoned carcass as long as it persists in the environment.

Fortunately, thanks to the ongoing efforts of Defenders’ legal team, imperiled prairie species in six states will be safer this fall.

Last summer, the DC Circuit court sided with Defenders and put a temporary ban on the use of Rozol in four states. In addition, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency agreed to revisit the impacts of Rozol on threatened and endangered species across 10 states.

Amending Rozol label to require enhanced searches to remove poisoned prairie dogs before other animals feed on them

Defenders is still concerned that some of these measures don’t go far enough. So far, EPA has posted the new measures on their Bulletins Live! website, but there’s no guarantee that pesticide users will actually implement them. Further, EPA is likely to allow Rozol to be used again in areas not covered by the new conservation measures. Even if Rozol were banned completely, there are still other dangerous poisons on the market that can be substituted, some of which have dire impacts for non-target species.

But overall, the changes made by EPA are a step in the right direction. Meanwhile, Defenders will continue working to get rid of other pesticides that are harmful to imperiled wildlife.

Adopt a Prairie Dog to Save Real Animals in the Wild

Prairie dog adoptions are a great way to share your appreciation for this keystone species while helping to support Defenders’ work on their behalf.

Not only is Defenders board member Joel Sartore a world-renowned wildlife photographer, but he’s also a consummate activist. Read the column below that was published today in the Lincoln Journal Star opposing a terrible piece of legislation in Nebraska that would expand counties’ authority to poison prairie dogs.

———————————————-

Local View: Oppose LB473: Protect our wildlife and property rights

By Joel Sartore

For more than 20 years, I’ve had the privilege to photograph wildlife all around the world for National Geographic Magazine.

And in every place I’ve visited, there’s at least one plant or animal that is considered a “keystone” species for the outsized role it plays in maintaining nature’s balance. In parts of Africa, it’s elephants. In our oceans, it’s sharks and sea otters. For Nebraska, it’s the black-tailed prairie dog, though it’s an animal already so reduced in numbers you would be hard-pressed to find one if you drove this state from one end to the other.

So it’s hard to imagine why some of our elected leaders seem hell-bent on getting rid of as many of the remaining prairie dogs as possible, even forcing landowners to poison them against their wishes. Right now, a bill (LB473, “The Black-tailed Prairie Dog Management Act”) is working its way through the Legislature that would allow county governments to force the poisoning of prairie dogs on private land should any cross a property line. To add insult to injury, the bill would allow the county to come on your property without asking, and then send you the tab for killing native wildlife.

Forget about the prairie dogs for a minute and think about this with me. What if a deer beds on one landowner’s property but eats crops on a neighbor’s land? Should the landowner where the deer sleeps be held responsible? Of course not. Nobody owns wildlife, so why would anyone be liable for a species that moves from one parcel of land to the next?

In an era where every new government mandate is met with great outrage (remember Obamacare?), how is this any different? This bill is an effort by the government to force individuals to pay for something they do not want; trespassers and poisoning at the landowner’s expense.

So this leaves just one question: How did this thing ever get out of committee? This not only is an affront to property rights, but to personal liberties and freedoms as well. Beyond that, is it even constitutional to force private citizens to eradicate a native species at their expense and against their will?

The fact that few senators have spoken out against this actually speaks volumes about the Unicameral at this point in time. Nebraska Game and Parks remains silent as well, even though they’re the agency designated to protect our nongame wildlife.

If individual landowners want to poison prairie dogs on their own dime, that’s their business. But this bill is similar to a 1901 Kansas law that still is being enforced against the wishes of private landowners.

This new bill would similarly set Nebraska back to an outdated mind-set when healthy wildlife and healthy lands were not valued. And this clear violation of property rights stands to have major impact on not only prairie dogs, but on all the other imperiled species that rely on them, from burrowing owls to salamanders.

In a crowded world worn increasingly ragged, we should be doing everything we can to protect these vital animals and restore the ecosystems that depend upon them, not making it easier for counties to wipe them out.

It’s time for our elected leaders to stand up for both Nebraska’s wildlife and our property rights by rejecting this bill. Contact your state senator now. They will vote on this within days, and it will take only a simple majority, 25 out of our state’s 49 lawmakers, to allow this terrible idea to become law.

That’s right. A new report from the good folks at Crop Life America identifies a cure for our nation’s prevailing economic ills: PESTICIDES!

Bald eagles were nearly wiped out in the 1970s due to the harmful effects of the pesticide DDT. Photo courtesy US Military

Turns out, pesticides create an additional $82 billion by improving crop yields, with “spin-off effects” of $166.5 billion in related industries. The report also concludes that pesticides have produced environmental benefits by quadrupling yields of corn and wheat without having to clear additional land. Who knew?

Of course, there’s absolutely no mention of the indirect costs on America’s native wildlife or public health from spilling toxic chemicals into our waterways. Nor is there any evaluation of the long-term impacts of agribusiness and industrial-scale monoculture, both of which are responsible for dismantling local food networks and putting the small family farmer out of business.

Let’s not forget that less than 40 years ago, the widespread use of DDT had virtually eradicated bald eagles and peregrine falcons, and pesticides today continue to wreak havoc on fish and amphibian species across the country.** (Read Defenders factsheet to learn more about the real impacts that pesticides have on the environment.)

Now, we all have to eat. And certainly pesticides will continue to play an important role in feeding the country. But no economic assessment can be complete without also examining the impact that pesticides have on water quality, human health, and the myriad species that must endure these poisons in their habitat.

Crop Life America has been lobbying Congress to weaken protections from pesticides that keep our drinking water safe and our people and wildlife healthy. This one-sided report is just their latest attempt to exploit our nation’s current economic downturn in order to boost corporate profits for the pesticide manufacturers and agribusinesses they represent.

Pacific salmon are just one of many species at risk from pesticide poisoning.

At-risk species like Pacific salmon and steelhead, which have tremendous economic value of their own, are now threatened with extinction in large part because of toxic run-off into our rivers and streams from farms sprayed with pesticides. The truth is that we need stronger protections to limit the damage that pesticides inflict on the environment, not weaker ones.

If pesticides are to be used, we must do a better job of making sure they don’t harm humans and wildlife. Rolling back environmental protections and dumping ever more pesticides onto the land and into our water is not a recipe for sustainable economic growth.

Help Defenders stand up to powerful special interests like Crop Life by supporting better protections from pesticides.

**NOTE: A recent survey of 583 conservation scientists found that 99.5% of respondents believe that a serious loss of biological diversity is imminent.

]]>One of the most endangered mammals in North America, the black-footed ferret, and the prairie dogs on which they feed, will have one less hazard to worry about this winter. Defenders won a court victory barring the use of Rozol Prairie Dog Bait in the states of Montana, New Mexico, North Dakota, and South Dakota.

Rozol, which contains the blood thinner chlorophacinone, causes death by internal bleeding and hemorrhaging. Dead and dying prairie dogs can be scavenged by ferrets and raptors, which in turn become poisoned themselves. Defenders sued the EPA for approving the use of Rozol and ignoring federal safeguards under the Endangered Species Act, the Federal Insecticide Fungicide and Rodenticide Act, and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act.

In a recent decision, a district court in the District of Columbia sided with Defenders, ruling that EPA had indeed violated the ESA by approving Rozol without first consulting with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service over the potential impacts of Rozol on ferrets and other threatened and endangered species.

The final order in the case bars use of Rozol in those four states, requires that Rozol’s manufacturer Liphatech, Inc., notify its distributors not to sell the product in those areas, and prohibits Liphatech from selling or distributing existing stocks in its possession without relabeling it to reflect the ban in those four states. EPA has also agreed to complete consultation with FWS over Rozol use in 10 states to prevent accidental injury to other listed species in the West.

Salmon populations on the West Coast are threatened by the use of harmful pesticides.

Of course, they failed to mention that the misuse of pesticides continues to threaten salmon populations up and down the West Coast. Farm workers are also at serious risk through repeated exposure to these chemicals. But when have human health and or endangered species ever stood in the way of corporate profits?

The Environmental Protection Agency has responsibility for deciding which pesticides are safe to use, but their analyses frequently fail to consider potential impacts on endangered species. However, under a provision of the Endangered Species Act, EPA is required to consult with either the U.S. Fish & Wildlife or the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) to make sure that new pesticide registrations will not have undue impacts on endangered species.

The pesticide industry, led by CropLife America, believes that the current consultation process with expert biologists sets too high a burden and is trying to dismantle the process.

The focus of the debate has been a series of biological opinions (or in bureaucratic jargon, “bi-ops”) issued beginning in 2008 by NMFS, stating the EPA had not provided sufficient protections for endangered salmon. EPA has yet to implement any of the recommendations outlined in those bi-ops, and the lax protections have now become the subject of several lawsuits.

Now the pesticide industry and their congressional puppets are trying to prevent the “bi-ops” from becoming law.

Defenders is working hard to make sure that essential protections for both humans and imperiled wildlife are not tossed aside. Strong environmental champions like sophomore Rep. John Garamendi (D-CA) and veteran Reps. Ed Markey (D-MA) and Raul Grijalva (D-AZ), are taking a stand against the pesticide and agribusiness industries to make sure we have healthy salmon populations, safe working environments and clean water for generations to come.

]]>Earlier this month the St. Petersburg Times reported that the most commonly used fungicide in the U.S. is highly lethal to frogs, and perhaps other wildlife. Chlorothalonil is in the same family of organochlorines as DDT, which was eventually banned in the U.S. because of its impacts on humans and wildlife.

Atrazine has been associated with severe health problems for humans, including birth defects and other reproductive problems for both men and women. Amphibian studies have shown that atrazine can stimulate estrogen production and cause male frogs to exhibit female characteristics that adversely affect reproductive health. These studies are important because frogs have similar vital systems to humans. Yet EPA maintains that no additional testing is needed.

Save the Frogs Day is just around the corner on April 29, so come celebrate in DC. A group of frog advocates will be gathering at the steps of the Environmental Protection Agency to raise awareness and push for a ban on atrazine.

When it comes to their impact on the environment, not all cut flowers are created equal. With Valentine's Day fast approaching, it's a good time to stop and think about where those beautiful bouquets really come from, and how they got to your doorstep.

]]>When it comes to their impact on the environment, not all cut flowers are created equal. With Valentine’s Day fast approaching, it’s a good time to stop and think about where those beautiful bouquets really come from, and how they got to your doorstep.

Here’s a special guest blog from writer Charles Bergman, to help you decide where — or whether — to buy cut flowers for your sweetheart.

Do flowers harm wildlife?

Red roses are particularly popular around Valentine's Day

Few of us are likely to make this connection when we buy a bouquet for our sweetheart or mom. Flowers are a symbol of everything that is pure and positive, expressions of love and joy. That’s why Americans spend $20 billion on flowers every year.

But during research on flowers in Ecuador, I learned they can harm wildlife and people. After touring a greenhouse full of stunning, near-perfect roses, I walked to the lagoon where run-off water is dumped. Several fish floated belly up by the shoreline.

“Poisons,” whispered my friend, a former farm worker. Pesticides in the waste water.

About 70 percent of flowers sold in the United States are imported. Virtually all of the 1.5 billion roses sold every year in the United States come from Colombia and Ecuador. In addition to ideal growing conditions, these countries rely on heavy use of pesticides to produce their flowers. One study found as many as 127 different pesticides in flowers from Colombia, including highly toxic chemicals banned in the United States. Numerous studies now have linked pesticides to serious health problems among flower workers, as well as harm to rivers and animals.

Selecting "green" flowers is a great way to show your love for the planet!

Growers’ associations counter that the flower business employs thousands of poor people who otherwise would have no jobs: over 45,000 people are employed on some 400 flower farms in Ecuador, making flowers the third pillar in Ecuador’s economy, behind only oil and bananas. Colombia employs over 100,000 flowers workers.

They argue they have lowered pesticide use and improved labor practices. In Colombia, pesticide use is down almost 40 percent. Yet environmental and workers’ groups in Ecuador told me that highly toxic pesticides are still used.

Those of us who love wildlife have good reasons to be concerned about the flowers we buy. Luckily, the market for green flowers is blooming. The key has been a certification program called VeriFlora, guaranteeing flowers (including those from Latin America) that are sustainable and labor-friendly. Though still a small and sometimes confusing part of the total flower market, sales of green flowers have grown by as much as 50 percent annually in the last decade according to the Organic Trade Association.

On Garcia Organic Farm near San Diego, I saw with my own eyes how wildlife-friendly green flower farms can be. Owner Armando [full name, pls] showed me his organic roses, as well as avocados and other fruits. “Sometimes we see bobcats,” he mentioned as we rounded the corner of an orchard.

Those of us who love wildlife have good reasons to be concerned about the flowers we buy. Luckily, the market for green flowers is blooming.

In the shade of a lemon tree, there sat a bobcat! It almost seemed summoned by Armando — eloquent testimony to the habitat values of organic flower farms.